Mine went:lakes-->rivers and streams for bass, carp, catties, etc.---->stockies in the spring (tolerated), rivers and streams for smallies in the summer--->introduce fly fishing, stockies in the spring, smallies on rivers in the summer, stockies in the summer on vacation (Kettle, Pine)--->introduced to native and wild trout-game over. Now its wild trout year round, pre-spawn smallies and smallies in the summer, sometimes carp just for fun! I love fly fishing. I really don't care anymore what I'm targeting. The summer is my favorite time because the bassing is good and the trout is good. Some days my moods are different and I can do whatever I want!

All this to say that just because stocked trout wouldn't be in the picture doesn't mean you can't teach kids about fishing and get them into the sport. I was 12 years old before I caught my first trout, but I was 2 or 3 when I first picked up a fishing rod (Zebco 33, I still have it!)

Jack's right. The commission exists, not only for conservation, but also for recreation. Recreation shouldn't come at the expense of conservation though, and I think that's where some of us get a little squirmish with stocking over wild populations. It's certainly a tricky balance. The stream I keep thinking of here in Lancaster is our most popular ATW. It's strong w/ natives, a few wild browns, but it gets pounded for a few weeks in April. It's bigger water and although it lacks structure, it has great hatches, an ample supply of bait fish, it's spring fed up at the head waters, and I can't help but wonder how big some of those natives and wilds could get if they survive the harvesting. The PFBC has stopped stocking browns now, based on the numbers of natives that have turned up in recent surveys (I think that's what Mike said, anyway), so now its stocked w/ bows. That at least shows that the commission is considering the native population there, but they also have to deal w/ the fact that its such a popular ATW. I can see how its a tricky balancing act.

Stockies are what got me into the sport. I may not appreciate it that much now, but it has its place and importance.What would happen? Not Montana, that I assure you. Spring Creek would still be well. Wonder why that would be?

I think my hangup with the "no stocking over wild fish" crowd is that few realize just how many streams have a extremely small population of wild fish. I kind of agree in principle. But there's so many streams out there that have a very small handful of wild fish, that maybe wondered in from a trib or something. But would NOT be much of a trout fishery without stockies. It'd be a waste of resource not to stock them.

So to me, you gotta draw a line. The policy ALREADY is that they don't stock what they consider to be viable wild trout sport fisheries. i.e. class A. So nothing has to change in regards to philosophy. I just think they set that bar way too high.

And yeah, you have to draw the line somewhere. There's no perfect way to do it. But biomass is the best method we have. IMO, all of the class B's, and most of the class C's and even many D's I consider to be good sport fisheries for wild trout. I'm not even sure exactly where I would draw it, probably low C, high D range.

But certainly lower than the current class A/B line. That's the direction I'd like to go. All that has to be done is to lower the biomass line required to be considered class A. And the current environment of reduced stocking numbers is the perfect excuse. You remove streams from the stocking list starting with the highest biomass. The result is, that on the streams that we all agree should be stocked, the reduction in fish would be less harsh.

I was thinking about that, especially w/ streams like Kettle or Pine. You're right, there are some wilds that come up into streams from tribs and such. The line is too high though. You're probably right-between D and C would be fine with me. As, Bs, and Cs are pretty strong populations in my opinion.

pcray1231 wrote:I think my hangup with the "no stocking over wild fish" crowd is that few realize just how many streams have a extremely small population of wild fish. I kind of agree in principle. But there's so many streams out there that have a very small handful of wild fish, that maybe wondered in from a trib or something. But would NOT be much of a trout fishery without stockies. It'd be a waste of resource not to stock them.

So to me, you gotta draw a line. The policy ALREADY is that they don't stock what they consider to be viable wild trout sport fisheries. i.e. class A. So nothing has to change in regards to philosophy. I just think they set that bar way too high.

And yeah, you have to draw the line somewhere. There's no perfect way to do it. But biomass is the best method we have. IMO, all of the class B's, and most of the class C's and even many D's I consider to be good sport fisheries for wild trout. I'm not even sure exactly where I would draw it, probably low C, high D range.

But certainly lower than the current class A/B line. That's the direction I'd like to go. All that has to be done is to lower the biomass line required to be considered class A. And the current environment of reduced stocking numbers is the perfect excuse. You remove streams from the stocking list starting with the highest biomass. The result is, that on the streams that we all agree should be stocked, the reduction in fish would be less harsh.

If we were to not stock over wild trout would these streams fall into sqecial artificial regs or catch and release only. I know a lot of guys that enjoy tossing worms and such to brookies that would be pretty ticked if they would shut these streams down to bait fisherman.

Posted on: 2013/4/4 10:59

_________________
"There he stands, draped in more equipment than a telephone lineman, trying to outwit an organism with a brain no bigger than a breadcrumb, and getting licked in the process."

mike_richardson wrote:If we were to not stock over wild trout would these streams fall into sqecial artificial regs or catch and release only. I know a lot of guys that enjoy tossing worms and such to brookies that would be pretty ticked if they would shut these streams down to bait fisherman.

I don't think anyone ever suggested that or implied that would happen.

mike_richardson wrote:If we were to not stock over wild trout would these streams fall into sqecial artificial regs or catch and release only. I know a lot of guys that enjoy tossing worms and such to brookies that would be pretty ticked if they would shut these streams down to bait fisherman.

Look at the brookie streams that are currently unstocked. There's your answer.

Stocked trout aren't neccesary to teach kids fishing or get them hooked on the sport.

thats what i was getting at with my questions above, ie if you can't create a sustainable trout fishery through stocking, would it be more economic to stock it just once with bass, perch etc - which when stocked in Europe grow to huge sizes - 6lbs + :

(who'd wanna fry that...)

in Spain, they stock smallies all the time to create permanent viable warm water fisheries for all types of anglers. annual stocking is minimal but the fishing is superb.

i'd rather see that and the money saved spent on enhancing the marginal wild fisheries - by habitat improvement, planting trees, insect harchery boxes, riparian strips, and stream 'washing' - where water flows throw a crushed limestone barrier etc.

why not maximise all fisheries, rather than trying to force just one where nature doesn't want it.

i think we all agree we want to see wild trout enhanced and not stocked over if possible, so in my mind creating an alternative viable sustaining fishery that's more economic is the best way...

There'd be no reason to change any of the regs on the wild streams that exist, Mike. In fact, I'd be against putting regs on those streams, as regs tend to draw attention to waterways. I think most native streams are fine with the current regs in place.

I keep getting the feeling that these discussions are really about wild trout fishermen, more than the welfare of wild fish.

It's a political reality that there will be some stocking in PA. To protect wild fish, you would first stock where there are no wild fish. Then, maybe you should stock some class A streams, and some Bs, where the wild fish can take the impact. You should not stock the class C & D streams where the wild fish are not as strong. Wouldn't that be the way to protect fragile wild trout populations?

What I keep hearing is that the stocking should be in the other order, stock the class C and D streams, but not the As and Bs. Which would put the stocking impact over the weaker wild fish populations, but makes for better wild trout fishing on the As and Bs.

Cool. But (Belushi voice here) Who do we care about, wild trout or wild trout fishermen?

Of course I am not really serious about wanting to see stocking on class As, but I really don't think we have it so bad. Lots of great wild trout fishing here, just using maps.

Posted on: 2013/4/4 12:29

Edited by k-bob on 2013/4/4 12:44:23Edited by k-bob on 2013/4/4 12:57:15Edited by k-bob on 2013/4/4 13:07:04